For topics related to the design of rulesets for interactive entertainment systems - video games, board games, tabletop RPGs, or any other type. /r/gamedesign is not a subreddit about general game development, nor is it a programming subreddit. This is a place to talk about crafting rules.

Use this community to network, discuss rule crafting, and share game design tips with other game designers. Designers of all experience levels are welcome!

DO NOT post asking about game development in general, i.e. "how do I get a job in the game industry?" type questions.

DO NOT post about programming, art, story, music, or anything other than game design, unless your post would result somehow in a discussion on the topic of game design. "What do you think of my concept art" will not facilitate a game design discussion, so it's not relevant.

DO NOT post sales, memes, cute pictures, jokes, etc.

Please report any submissions or comments violating these rules using the report button.

There will be giant monsters, so big that the player might hurt his neck trying to look up high enough to see it. The monsters will be killable. The players will work up to killing the big monsters but they can kill them more easily with a group. Some of the giant monsters are not hostile, one even has a city on the back that players can live on.

The gametype is survival, however it is easy to resurrect dead players if he has a friend, assuming the friend has a ress item/skill. Resurrection is only possible for a short time and only if a player didnt hi an instant kill threshold, is giant stepping on a player means he can't be resurrected.PVP is strongly encouraged by giving player killers the ability to steal all of the items from a player as well as giving him a percentage of that players xp.

Combat is done in first person only and plans to use vr devices would be planned. The game would use swor, sheild and magic gameplay, something akin to skyrim. The plan is to design a game with skyrim style combat but a darksouls armor and magic system.

The in game world is huge but the player base for each world is small, only 100-150. Traveling between worlds isn't hard but the player inventories will be set up so that they aren't bringing their hoard world to world.

The world is a hybrid between randomly generated and static. Most of the large structures are created by the level designers but the small encampments and safe roads between cities are randomly generated. This means a player used to traveling in one world will get lost in another.

Every city in the game starts off monster infested save for the starting city. Starting city is a misleading term, no player will start at this city. The city is a hub for players to trade with each other and sell their items. There are npc’s in the city, there jobs are mainly to keep players gear and trade for basic goods such as food and armor. There are NPC’s out in the world as well that give out rare loot for a price, these npc’s will be unique and immortal.

The giant monsters don't respawn and city's don't become reclaimed by monsters, save for special events. A smaugh type event might occur if lots of players store there treasures in a single city. Small monsters on roads and dungeons do respawn.

I've downvoted you because I really don't see this as helpful or meaningful in the discussion.

(And who wants Skyrim style combat? It can hardly get more shallow.)

This is just straight up insulting. You realise that some people don't come in with the theory or the vocabulary that game designers use, so they communicate how they know how (surprise surprise, that is by referencing games). And I like skyrims combat, but honestly that is even relevant.

That's why these people should at first learn that vocabulary. If you don't even know the basic language to analyze or describe the form of art you want to become a creator of, it's questionable if you should even start to create anything (probably it won't be anything of any value).

It's the same with music, film-making, painting and any other form of art. It's severly important when you're intending to create yourself, but even if you're just consuming, it's highly advisable. I like how Richard Terrell once put it:

Regardless of what you're looking for, it takes work to get more complex, more varied, and more meaningful experiences out of art and entertainment. It's work whether you have to know a language to read books, you have to recognize the grammar to enjoy music, piece together scenes and characters to understand movies, or learn mechanics to understand interactivity and gameplay.

His glossary is by the way probably a decent starting point in terms of language.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree. Haven't studied fine art? Don't pick up a pencil. Don't have an literature degree? Don't even think about writing something. Maybe you agree with those standpoints, but I definitely do not. I think that's not only ridiculous, it's elitist.

And even with all the knowledge of terminology, theory of ludology, a good grip on the principles of flow, design complexity, whatever - that doesn't mean you're going to make a good game. Are you really telling me you learned all that stuff before you tried your hand at making a game? And are you really telling me that the first game you made was good and "of value" as you put it? I know mine wasn't. In fact I'm sure my first 4 or 5 weren't.

you have to recognize the grammar to enjoy music, piece together scenes and characters to understand movies

Really? Can't enjoy music without theoretical knowledge? I'm not even going to say any more on that. While I recognise that the language of communication is a useful tool for conveying and understanding each others ideas, not knowing them isn't going to make you a bad designer in the same way that knowing them isn't going to make you a good designer. They are something that should be learned along the way, not studied for far in advance before any practical attempt is made.

It's easy to shoot someone down, especially when you can't see the look on their face when they read the things you've said. If this is his/her first game, it probably won't be great. Not just design wise but implementation also. MMO with multiple worlds? I wouldn't want to go near that and I've been programming for more than 10 years. But I'm going to encourage someone that wants to do it to go for it, and (in my opinion) the community has a responsibility to do so too.

It's not about "degrees", but self-study. Too many people jump into a craft without knowing anything about it. So instead of being able to come up with something original, they basically have to copy something that's already there. And that's why we have this huge tradition of clones of clones of clones everywhere. Many people fail to acknowledge that it's a ton of work to even develop a basic understanding of how a game, song or movie works. They have completely wrong expectations.

Are you really telling me you learned all that stuff before you tried your hand at making a game?

Pretty much. I didn't start to compose and produce songs, and writing lyrics, until I had learned to play the drums and at least had a basic understanding of lyrics (prosody etc.) and music theory in general (harmonics and stuff). Later on I didn't start designing games until I had quite a number of books under my belt to form a solid theoretical background and had written dozens of articles on the topic myself to organize my thoughts and theories. That doesn't mean that my first efforts weren't crappy. Of course they were. But I knew why and where to turn to, to get better. And whether I'm "good" or not now, I am absolutely positive that I got better over time.

Can't enjoy music without theoretical knowledge?

Depends on how you define "enjoy". I think Richard was talking about a really deep and profound level of enjoyment there. Being able to appreciate the work of art in depth and knowing exactly why and how you appreciate it. That's something different than just "feeling good about it". Which you could of course also call "enjoyment" (and I actually would).

But I'm going to encourage someone that wants to do it to go for it, and (in my opinion) the community has a responsibility to do so too.

Wouldn't it be far more reasonable to advise the person to actually think about a much simpler idea, that's technologically feasible? Like focussing on one clear core mechanism and creating a small but tight system around that? I think one could learn far more from this approach. Why should we rather let someone run into his/her own demise by pursuing an idea that blows up every reasonable scope whatsoever.

There are some really nice ideas in here, but when you think of a game idea you need to put yourself into the mind of the player and think "What will i be doing, minute to minute?". You've got your hour to hour stuff down, but what will the player be thinking about in real time? There's got to be something that set's this apart from the other games that do similar things (which will likely be better and more appealing because of there million dollar budgets).

What I mean is: when you say skyrim combat, this is where you need to sit down and think "I like skyrims combat. What can I do to create a feeling like this? What can I take/change/amalgamate? What should be new? What would I like that I haven't seen?", because otherwise you're not really making your game, your making a skyrim combat clone. The same goes for dark souls armour system. You need to put a spin on it. That's why people like these games in the first place.

Get into the details of it. Come up with some cool stuff the player can do, something you haven't seen before.

Overall you've obviously got a passion, and the creativity is there, but you have to make things your own. When you do that not only will people love your games but more importantly YOU wiill love your games. Report back, and good luck!

Minute by minute I just assumed they would be hunting for smaller monsters.

As for the combat it was going to be first person. I was just generalizing the combat but I was thinking that the armor dictated skill slot. Heavy armor allows for more melee skills and light armor allows for more magic skills. Skills would be learned by killing monsters with certain weapons or finding books.

Not all of the giant monsters are hostile. Some even let you climb on them. Sometimes the monsters will come under attack by players and other players will have incentive to protect them. City monsters are what will be protected the most. Killing the monsters takes skill more than stats, at least for the large ones. Heart cores and joints will be the main targets for killing the monsters.

When all the monsters in a world die the game gets harder. A new batch of monsters come into play who go out of their way to hunt players.

What are your thoughts on maneuvering around and on the monsters and actually fightning them? Will there be a system for climbing sheer walls, or perhaps some form of hook-shot or flying mechanics? Will the monsters have "level design elements" on them such as platforms, ladders, stairs, etc?

How does the big monsters fight back, and how will this combat be made interesting and sensible?

There will be hookshot type mechanics but for the really tall ones the hook won't be long enough. I need to get an artist to help me show the scale of each class of monster before I can really explain it fully. The city monsters have internal dungeons to their hearts, some are more mazes then actual fights. The slightly smaller titans have plates and platforms that pellet there structure. The goal is to break the titan heart, some titans have a few of them and they regenerate fairly quickly so soloing a titan isn't usually an option unless you have an op build. Since the game is in first person I need to do more brainstorming before I come to a conclusion about how to actually scale the monsters.

I know that. I've got a bunch of smaller game ideas but this one just wouldn't sit down in my head. I had an idea for a game that was a ssb clone but before every fight the player had to use a skill card puzzle game to decide his skills and stats.

To be honest, after reading this I'm uncertain of why I would ever want to play this game. Not because I know it would be bad, but because I just don't have any idea of what the appeal would be. In writing pitches like this it's important to not only point out core mechanics (which to your credit you seem to be doing more than in your previous posts), but also bridge the gap between those mechanics and the game's broader aesthetics and appeals.

In other words, what does the game most importantly try to achieve? Competition, cooperation, exploration, challenge, etc. More than one of those is fine but in that case there should either be clear priority of one over the others, or they should be tied in very well with each other. How do the game's mechanics achieve this/these goal(s)?

If I had to state a goal right Now it would be to encourage players to explore the world, hence the random roads bit. I would also encourage PvP by using the xp leach mechanic when a player kills another player. Last but not least I would want them to team up to take down the collosal monsters. Everyone has one life, they need to use it wisely.

Ive run stuff like this through other forums for roleplay, the biggest problem i have really is just keeping the number crunching in check. I like DND but when we take 30 minutes a round it kind of bothers me.

There's some wonderful imagary here; somewhere between Shadow of the Colossus and The Great A'Tuin

I think there's a few things it needs: progression, variation, and some sort of factions. Here's a few ideas

Different monstercities have different characteristics. The first you meet are confined to solid ground, some are amphibious, some are aquatic, some can scale mountains, some can fly

When you find a city you can align yourself with it. You have access to your hoard, it's safe, you can trade there, other alligned players become allies, and it'll take you anywhere it can as long as you defend it from other monsters and cities. Use the system to give players the motivation to work together and reward them for doing so. Maybe if your city falls you lose your hoard and basically become an unalligned refugee

Each city roams randomly within the confines of it's abilities (an early city is basically confined the flatish areas, a flying city might only occasionally land, and aquatic city can't reach the shore) and, should two get too close, a fight might break out

Let players progress but move away from the traditional leveling system and allow it through exploration. You can travel on foot to another city and make it your home. Say you want to get on that awesome looking flying thing, youre going to need to work for it; you're going to need to get to where it'll land but it only rests in high places, you can't climb that high by yourself so you're going to need to hitch a ride on something that can. Once you've made it you can rain down fire on your enemies... until you inevitably fall off. More advanced citied aren't necesserily better, there's just more risk/reward and require skill to utilize

I think the things people are saying here are accurate, but some are surmountable. It is a ridiculously large concept, especially if you've never made a game before. But you could work on it day and night for years as a passion project.

You might want to google "Game Design Document" for some examples of what a lot of folks on here (and the other two subreddits I mentioned above) are hoping for in a game idea pitch. Doesn't have to be THAT detailed, of course, but it might give you a starting place.

I am actually working on a document but it looks like garbage right now. As far as the size of it goes, the world is large. This means we need a small team dedicated to level design, i bet making the actual titan monsters would only take a few guys a few months to make some up.

I think you're way off target with that estimate and with the scope of what you're attempting to achieve. There's a reason there are lots and lots of people talking about making low budget MMOs and very, very few completed ones. Have you worked on smaller games to get an idea of scope?

If you're determined, attempt it anyway. It will be a learning process. Not sure if you'll be able to attract people with quality skills to help, unless you're paying, though.

The game is to a similar scale as shadow of the collosus was. The team was 35 men, your probably right in saying I'm a little off on numbers. I do think though that a small demo alpha could be achieved with that team size, hopefully resulting in funding from one source or another. Once again though, this is a pipe dream.

I imagine that it will suck for a new player because the PVP stuff will make it about having groups of players go around killing everyone else for the XP and gold. I like the idea of VR, but I would get annoyed at fighting a creature that is too big to view comfortably.

I didn't think about that. The monsters would have to be designed to be viewed in chunks. As for PvP, its really not all that different then other survival. People will hunt you regardless. There is just less reason to hunt noons and more reason to ghunt geared players.

I'm not quite sure where the tradeable items are being collected from. You haven't detailed the control interface at all. Will it use a STEM / Razer Hydra's button / bumper / trigger / analog stick interface, or full body gestures (say which)? Even if it is, as you say, a 'pipe dream', it is good mental discipline to be able to answer these fundamental questions. Unfortunately, a lot of would be designers ramble on about some epic narrative they've got in mind for a game, provide detailed concept art, yet fail to describe any actual game mechanics.

Pop Quiz: How many weapons can Master Chief carry at once in Halo 3. (answer as quickly as possible, then check)

Well, let's work around to the answer by listing them. It may seem at first hand to be two with the (Y) button swapping between them, which is a great simplification to earlier D-Pad driven weapon inventories which could support eight, but given that you can have double mixed weapons with "dual-wielding" then you could have a Battle Rifle stowed away and a Plasma Pistol and Sub-Machine Gun in either hand, giving you three. You also get a maximum of three if you pick up a Human Turret as it forces you to drop one of the three first. Then, in Custom Games you can enable all types of grenade yielding an additional four weapons, and Equipment like the Power Drain can be seen as a weapon, so in total the answer is eight, now the reason I ask this (assuming your familiarity with this seminal game) is to get you to be more aware of the decisions and tradeoffs Bungie made when developing the Halo series, the first one lacked dual-wielding, the second allowed it with Needlers which proved to be overpowered and was subsequently removed. At every stage 'ergonomics' and 'balance' were being assessed. As a general rule of thumb it is best to err on the side of making your controls very accessible (i.e. it isn't hard to navigate the environment, or target enemies) this artificial "empowerment" compensates for the very real disability imposed on the player by forcing them to use a gamepad (it is rather like the controls of an electric wheelchair, no?), with the interface made accessible and comfortable the balance can be readjusted to ensure the player is challenged by more, or smarter enemies. A good example of this done right is GoldenEye 007 on the N64.

All items would be tradeable and most of are either looted from chests or bought, no wolfs dropping body armor. As for weapons players will have two weapon sets, dual wielding is an option for both. Tools such as throwing daggers are a separate option that can be hot keyed. Magic is a trickier thing to work with. Players select their catylist and a second hot bar for the spells become available. Pure mage builds will be feasable as well as hybrid builds. Catylist size will effect spellpower and utility.

I would think that a controler like the xbox would be the cheapest and easiest route in this case but of course it would have a more detailed keyboard layout. Menus would be projected a short distance from the players face like a movie screen. The HUD is used for information and orentaition of the player. The HUD is projected in relation to the body. This way when a player moves his head the HUD stays where it is and the player always knows where he's facing. There will be no fancy hydra controls or body position ing aside from simple head and upper body to reduce sickness. I find that for now all players need to be on the same or similar level and both of these can deny this, for now anyways. There will be room to expand after 2015 when we have a better idea of what the market is like.

This is more of a pipe dream. Really I'm just hoping someone steals the idea. I bet an indie studio could pull this off with a 10 man team. World generation isn't a tricky thing anymore from what I've seen, the real trick is the ai programming and monster design.

City monsters can be hard to kill because before you kill them you have to clear a dungeon to their heart. Most players don't want this to happen anyways so there will be resistance from two factions. Large monsters also have hearts but the trick is getting to it.